A study released in November 2015 by 416 Labs, a Toronto-based consulting firm, reveals that the New York Times portrays Islam/Muslims more negatively than alcohol, cancer, and cocaine among other benchmarked words.

Based on a sentiment analysis of online and print headlines spanning 25 years of coverage, the study found “strong evidence that Islam/Muslims are consistently associated with negative terms in NYT headlines.” Key findings pertaining to 2,667,700 articles include:

“57% of the headlines containing the words Islam/Muslims were scored negatively. Only 8% of the headlines were scored positively.

Compared to all the other benchmarked terms (Republican, Democrat, Cancer and Yankees, Christianity and Alcohol), Islam/Muslims had the highest incidents of negative terms throughout the 25-year period.

Not once over the examined period does the aggregate negative sentiment of headlines related to Islam/Muslims go below the NYT aggregate (29%) for all headlines.

The most frequent terms associated with Islam/Muslims include “Rebels” and “Militant.” None of the 25 most frequently occurring terms were positive.”

To put these findings in perspective, the study notes that “despite causing more fatalities than violent acts by Jihadist groups [throughout the covered period], the negative sentiment for alcohol and cancer remains significantly below the sentiment shown in headlines for Islam and Muslims.”

In a phone interview, co-author Steven Zhou, who is in charge of Investigations and Civic Engagement at the recently established consulting firm, explained the reasons behind their inaugural study:

“Since 9/11, many media outlets began profiteering from the anti-Muslim climate. Though you could probably trace a similar trend back to the Iranian Revolution. We talk a lot about media and Islamophobia, but no body has done the math. So, we thought it is long overdue to have a quantitative investigation of an agenda-setting newspaper.”

Given that media organizations have a powerful role in influencing public perceptions, the study concludes that “the overwhelming sentiment associated with NYT headlines about Islam/Muslims is likely to distort perceptions,” suggesting “that the average reader of NYT is likely to assign collective responsibility to Islam/Muslims for the violent actions of a few.”

While the results may not be surprising to many readers, co-author Usaid Siddiqui who is in charge of Communications, Outreach and Partnerships said “when we went into it we didn’t think it would be surprising if Islam was one of the most negatively portrayed topics in the NYT…What did really surprise us was that compared with something as inherently negative as cancer, Islam still tends to be more negative.”

Though the study was published four months ago, it has received little attention. Zhou explains this is because “it’s the first study of a recently established firm. You know, we all worked on it while also having different full-time jobs and obligations.”

Nonetheless, given the spike in vitriol against Muslims in an election year, these findings are a timely wake-up call. Especially when voices like Robert Spencer’s, author and founder of the infamous Jihad Watch, a program of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, blast the study as:

“A classic example of how Leftists are out of touch with reality…the insidious agenda here is to silence even the slightest (and the New York Times is about as slight as you can get) critical word about anything related to Islam and Muslims. This would have the effect of silencing all opposition to the advancing jihad. It would be a recipe for defeat and surrender.”

Zhou said that he doesn’t “see [Spencer’s view] as an assessment of our substantial study, because it doesn’t address the raw statistical analysis and empirical evidence our work clearly highlights.” Zhou’s defense of the study is not only grounded in empirical evidence, but also in light of a conversation surrounding what could only be described as the Ayan Hirsi Ali Problem: “fringe Muslim [and non-Muslim] Americans, pushing an anti-Islam agenda are promoted as legitimate experts, thus mainstreaming ideas that are both offensive and incorrect.”

Spencer is yet to “demonstrate his qualifications to explicate this topic,” said Zhou. In fact, according to a report by the Muslim Public Affairs Council, Spencer, along with many other so-called “experts” on Islam, lacks crucial qualifications on the subject matter, and “mostly engages in internet-based polemics that he tries to pass off as serious scholarship.” In 2014, Carl W. Ernst, professor of Islamic Studies at the University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill, said that Spencer’s views “have no basis in scholarship,” with “no academic training in Islamic studies whatsoever.” Incidentally, UNC-CH is where Spencer earned his Master’s focusing on early Christianity.

Though the study keenly recognized that its findings are not necessarily the result of intentional choices by decision makers at the Times, it clearly points to an institutional tendency by many agenda-setting newspapers and organizations to paint Islam and Muslims with a single brush: war, violence, and terror.

Several recommendations are offered by the authors of the study to “help represent Islam/Muslims in a more accurate way.” These include educating reporters on the nuances of Islam, engaging local Muslim voices, and greater activism by Muslim organizations among others. Zhou said the most crucial tool for these recommendations to be taken up by people is “through creating spaces for Muslims beyond the mosque and home to talk about and engage with civic life.”

Advertising

About Dorgham Abusalim

Dorgham Abusalim recently graduated with a Master in International Affairs from the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva, Switzerland. You can follow him on Twitter @dabusalim.

This algorithm on Islamaphobia and how Muslims are covered by the media, supports this article. There is no doubt there any coverage on Muslims and Islam is negative and magnified, while the coverage of other religions and people, mostly downplayed.

Bangladesh may soon drop Islam as its national religion due to an increase in extremist attacks by Islamic groups targeting the country’s minorities, the Daily Mail reported on Thursday.

The supreme court has begun a hearing which would challenge Islam as the primary religion of roughly 90% of the Bangladesh population.

The hearing comes after a slew of attacks against the country’s minority populations, including Hindus, Christians and Shi’ite Muslims. Many of the attacks have been attributed to radical groups in the region, including those with ties to ISIS.

Bangladesh received its independence in 1972 following the Bangladesh Liberation War, and established itself as a secular democracy. The country adopted Islam as its official religion in 1988 through a constitutional amendment, although there has been growing sentiment in Bangladesh to return to more secular policies.

I would like radical leftists to explain how some prominent citizens of Bangladesh have come under the sway of Robert Spencer and Ayan Hirsi Ali. (I say prominent because it’s not a trivial thing, especially in a young democracy, to achieve a hearing by the supreme court.)

Mondoweiss in Your Inbox

There are now two ways to get Mondoweiss delivered directly to your inbox! Sign up for a daily digest of every story we publish or a weekly collection of highlights picked by Mondoweiss staff to stay up to date with our independent coverage of events in Israel/Palestine.

Subscription Options:

Weekly Daily Both

Support Mondoweiss’s independent journalism today

Mondoweiss brings you the news that no one else will. Your tax-deductible donation enables us to deliver information, analysis and voices stifled elsewhere. Please give now to maintain and grow this unique resource.